Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

by Nachtleuchten Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:55 am

Hi there from Germany!

Scrolling though the forum messages, I found that I pretty much identify with the decried concept of “asexual elitism”. Yes I confess to being a dyed-in-the-wool asexual elitist - while taking, at the same time, pretty much latitude about the term “antisexual”.

I recently voiced my concept of antisexuality (that is, antisexuality in so far as it pertains to me) on the antisexual group of ace-book.net (which is not just a dating, but also an asexual social network page – oh yes feel free to join the ephemeral antisexual group there).

I copy-and-paste because it sums it up all so neatly:

I’m not properly sex-repelled; I just think and feel that it’s not an adequate expression of who I am. I believe you cannot feel well about yourself unless you do what is in conformity with your personality.
In other words, there’s a total absence of sexual expression of any kind in my life, and I’m convinced like I’m convinced of few things that this is the right thing for me to be and to do (or, in this case, not to do).

I call myself anti-sexual out of frustration with what the AVEN-community has made of the “asexual” label. Once, in medieval times, angels were called asexual, and it meant just that: total absence of sexual expression. You won’t imagine an angel masturbating or having intercourse with his (sexual) partner just for the sake of keeping the relationship going.
AVEN has diluted the term such that the following statements (and still far worse) are included in it: “I’m asexual, but time and I again I watch porn and enjoy it” or “I’m asexual, but I have regular sexual intercourse with my partner, and it’s really quite a pleasurable thing to do”.

Sorry, but this sounds for me like a vegan saying: “I’m vegan, but of course I enjoy having my steak on the weekends”
You ARE what you DO; or rather, what you do truly expresses who you are.

So I’ve adopted the label “anti-sexual” for myself by default, because to all appearances “asexual” (the AVEN misnomer) so grossly fails to describe me.

But I’m truly pro-life. I was born by means of sexual intercourse, why should I somehow negate in retrospect my own existence and be against it? But procreation is something for other people to do, not for me

And returning on the subject:

I’d also judge celibate people (say, priests who life a sexless life in mind and body) more asexual than supposedly asexual people who enjoy sex in mind or body.
I’d even go so far as to say that the complete chaste and celibate, and who are happy with this lifestyle, are probably asexual to begin with, because they can so naturally take up this form of life.

What, in fact, I do not understand is the sexualization of society, and indeed it is quite vexing. That people just take for granted that you somehow MUST have a sexual life, in whatever form, and cannot manage to conceive of an alternative. For instance, I even have heard Catholics say that they somehow take for granted that their priest has something going on with someone, or spends his night-hours watching 18+ TV, because they deem sexuality to be a necessary part of a person’s life. I might say that, in my frustration about this and strong internal reaction against it, I’m antisexual.

Remains the fact that I am in principle pro-procreation and pro-life.

by Bobbb1 Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:29 am

by SCH0206 Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:44 am

Hello! It's great to have a new member!

I totally agree with you about what you said about AVEN. I used to be a member there years ago, but I was turned off by its hypocrisy and left. Many of its members are no different than sexuals.

by Biscotti Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:10 pm

Welcome. I have some comments, out of my own convictions from seeing prosexual rhetoric that has been threatening to antisexual goals in the wild. Let me know if this is un-welcome and I can stop.

But I can't say I agree with you on being antisex, but being pro-procreation. It's like reading someone say "I'm a vegan and think eating meat is wrong, but I will encourage/recommend that other people eat meat so as not to disrupt the industry" Which isn't THAT elitist.

Also low hanging fruit- being against sex is not in anyway "negating your existence". Which is a bit dramatic when all we're talking about is a viewpoint. Maybe a good analogy would be, if your parents met each other through having a mutual interest in cannibalism, and then eventually had you are you going to say that you're now existentially indebted to cannibalism?

imo actually it's a prosexual stance ("I'm asexual but I have sex with my partner" to me is equivalent to "I'm asexual but I have sex for procreation") We could talk about it if you want and try to reach some sort of understanding between each other, because I don't want to act as if I know exactly where you're coming from in one post. Maybe glean what we really mean.

Also regarding catholics, if I were to let my presumptions arise I will say that modern-day catholics can be weird. But not completely. I suspect a trend, but havent gotten enough information to prove it.
Nothing too remarkable outside of the normal populace mind you.

by Nachtleuchten Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:30 am

Biscotti wrote:I have some comments, out of my own convictions from seeing prosexual rhetoric that has been threatening to antisexual goals in the wild. Let me know if this is un-welcome and I can stop.

Oh, thanks for your comments! And I assure you they are most welcome. What are we here for if not exchanging viewpoints!

Biscotti wrote:But I can't say I agree with you on being antisex, but being pro-procreation. It's like reading someone say "I'm a vegan and think eating meat is wrong, but I will encourage/recommend that other people eat meat so as not to disrupt the industry" Which isn't THAT elitist.

I guess it’s not… Laughing

though, mind you, I don’t “encourage” it, but, of course, the stamp “pro” is misleading. It is also a reaction, but this time against against antisexual people who label themselves “anti-natalist”. “Anti-natalist” makes me cringe.

Well, if I don’t go about encouraging people to have sex, I think, nevertheless, that it’s perfectly normal for sexual people to have sex! And the vast majority of people of this planet are sexual people.

Am I against sexual exploitation, the degrading of women and men to objects etc. etc.? Of course I am! But then a multitude of sexual people are as well.

Biscotti wrote:
Also low hanging fruit- being against sex is not in anyway "negating your existence". Which is a bit dramatic when all we're talking about is a viewpoint. Maybe a good analogy would be, if your parents met each other through having a mutual interest in cannibalism, and then eventually had you are you going to say that you're now existentially indebted to cannibalism?

It’s not a good analogy. Because my parents could have met for a million other reasons than their mutual interest in cannibalism. So there is no “existential indebtedness” far and wide here. But I wouldn’t have come about any other way than by means of procreation. So there is flagrant case of “existential indebtedness” here.

Biscotti wrote:mo actually it's a prosexual stance ("I'm asexual but I have sex with my partner" to me is equivalent to "I'm asexual but I have sex for procreation")

Mh, no, what I mean is, someone who says: “I’m asexual but I have sex for procreation” isn’t asexual, because for me asexuality means literally, but in the most literal sense of literal, asexual, the absence of any expression, in thought and action, of sexuality.

An asexual person wouldn’t even think of having sex for procreation; he would let the sexual people think about it. Wink

There’re enough out there – no need to worry about the future of the human species

Biscotti wrote:Also regarding catholics,
Nothing too remarkable outside of the normal populace mind you.

Ah, yes, this was not to write against Catholics! Just to make a point, really.

by Biscotti Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:19 pm

I defend the cannibalism analogy because in my example of that specific case your parents met soley because of cannibalism (Let's say they lived in previous countries previously so meeting "accidentally" is even more unlikely then before, which was already unlikely).

Aside from that though, no one is under any obligation to approve of something they had no control over.

I agree with you in that speaking pragmatically, to what some people might call a defeatist position, and others may call a humble acknowledgement of your movements limitations, that it is highly unlikely that 100% of people will become a/ntisexual. But maybe we can be humble WITHOUT being defeatist. That is, recognize that we will not likely achieve a 100% population of antisexuals but still philosophically view it as an ideal and act in that way, so as not to be defeatist (if actively working to spread antisexual ideas) or exclusionary (if just referring to it as a policy for oneself).

Well, if I don’t go about encouraging people to have sex, I think, nevertheless, that it’s perfectly normal for sexual people to have sex! And the vast majority of people of this planet are sexual people.

You seem to have different definitions for sexual orientations than others. But speaking with classical definitions of sexual orientation, part of our goals is to help those who are dealing with "unwanted sexuality". And put forth the notion that just because one is heterosexual (or whatever), they do not have to have sex or act on anything.

Am I against sexual exploitation, the degrading of women and men to objects etc. etc.? Of course I am! But then a multitude of sexual people are as well.

Then why are they sexual? ba dum tsh. But for real I can and will argue that sex and sexual expression is inherently degrading and objectifying to ALL parties involved. Hence why I go by antisexual.
Not that I don't see where you're coming from. You're antisexual but more focused on defending your own preferences. Right? (I sometimes refer to this part of antisexualism as "personal antisexualism")

An asexual person wouldn’t even think of having sex for procreation; he would let the sexual people think about it. There’re enough out there – no need to worry about the future of the human species

Can't say I agree with this. Antisexualism is not a fad that is only cool or in because of a perceived population (of humans, family line, ethnicity or whatever) of sexual servants. It is a principle and is not dependent on circumstance, and it is for anyone who chooses it including sexuals.

by Nachtleuchten Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:31 am

Biscotti wrote: (I sometimes refer to this part of antisexualism as "personal antisexualism")

Yes, this would be where I come from. And from there as well

Biscotti wrote:exclusionary (if just referring to it as a policy for oneself)

Of course, being a literal asexual this idea

Biscotti wrote:help those who are dealing with "unwanted sexuality"

keeps confusing me. It somehow reminds me of sexual people trying to want to help asexual people with their "unwanted asexuality".
I maintain: Never force people against their nature. They won't get happy unless finding fulfilment in who and what they truly are, unless they can express this potential to the utmost. (And I refuse to think that anything aberrant is "natural", like cannibalism... but then I'm a pro-life nature optimist Very Happy

).

Sexual people trying to convince literal asexual ones, from their ideological standpoint of libido-necessity, that they somehow NEED to express sexuality, doesn't seem a far cry for me from anti-sexual people trying to convince sexual ones of the general vileness of sex, even if expressed in the most responsable and loving manner you can possibly imagine of.

So on this last point we will never agree. We can, to the contrary, readily agree that sexual expression is the one thing in the world most prone and apt to vileness, to distortion, to the destruction of sound human relationships, to degrading and objectifying humans.

by Biscotti Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:28 pm

If sex is or can be considered "loving" then I want no part of love. If vileness and blatant disrespect for someone as is inherent and inseperable from sexual conduct is considered "loving" then love, as you define it, is worthless and laughable, even sociopathic. I find such a notion disgusting and perverse and decisively not antisexual.
But I'm sorry, that was a triggering notion that I've seen other places and I don't hold ill will toward you over it.

Never force people against their nature.

I don't quite see how you're using the word "nature" (and other words you've used, but aren't as relevant to the discussion so I won't bring them up). Just because someone may have a tendency or penchant for something does not mean they have to act on it, or that it is even healthy to act on it. You're line of arguing seems to say that kleptomaniacs are excused in their behaviour because the act of stealing comes naturally to them.

doesn't seem a far cry for me from anti-sexual people trying to convince sexual ones of the general vileness of sex,

The difference is that their rhetoric is disgusting, nonsensical and easily torn apart. While ours is coherent and not pants-on-head lobotomized. If you insist on only using objective measurements (though as I am antisexual and this is an antisexual board, an antisexual bias is to be assumed and objectivity is not needed when arguing for one or the other) then you can still verify this by looking at the harms of both viewpoints comparitively. Antisexual rhetoric does not cause sexual coercion or assault.
Furthermore attempting to convince someone of something isn't equivalent to "forcing" them.

Anywho reflecting back on your opening post, did the asexual community that you encountered seriously treat a preference for oneself to never have sex as elitism? That's diseased and troubling.

by Nachtleuchten Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:10 pm

Biscotti wrote:You're line of arguing seems to say that kleptomaniacs are excused in their behaviour because the act of stealing comes naturally to them.

Well, like I said, I don't consider kleptomanism (or cannibalism, or any other hurtful behaviour) to be in nature. But then I have a very optimistic concept of nature. And procreation, for those who desire procreation, is part of it. Therefore I cannot conceive of it to be inherently evil.

Biscotti wrote:Anywho reflecting back on your opening post, did the asexual community that you encountered seriously treat a preference for oneself to never have sex as elitism? That's diseased and troubling

It was more my commenting "if you're masturbate, you're not asexual" that was causing trouble over there, back then... oh gosh, but since then a decade has past. And I don't care about being called an asexual elitist. There are worse things to be Very Happy

At the end of the day, I believe, our views are not worlds apart. Perhaps it's not the perspective that is different, but rather the coulouring of the perspective? Since I'm a nature-optimist, for example, anti-natalism makes me not only cringe, but, I confess, sometimes also puke (supporting abortion etc..).

But then, I gather this is not your stance. So I propose we leave it at that and discuss further details further on Wink

by SlagToccata Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:33 pm

I knew I wasn't alone in finding AVEN's bastardization of its eponymous term insulting and harmful to anyone it actually applied to. Couldn't agree more on that. I never thought much about the natalism issue myself as I've always considered it a separate discussion, so I guess I'll be the first to not argue with you on that. Welcome! Smile

by Guest Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:07 pm

Nachtleuchten wrote:Since I'm a nature-optimist, for example, anti-natalism makes me not only cringe, but, I confess, sometimes also puke

The idea of someone simply not being born, therefore not existing and not feeling any pain at all makes you puke? Well, considering that an infinite amount of potential people, including all the ones in all possible parallel universes, are currently not exiting anyone's vagina, I assume your stomach expulses vomit in perpetual motion.

by Nachtleuchten Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:11 pm

SlagToccata wrote:I knew I wasn't alone in finding AVEN's bastardization of its eponymous term insulting and harmful to anyone it actually applied to.

+1

by Sponsored content

Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)

Re: Hello from the elitist pinnacle ;-)